People v. James
228 A.D.2d 346, 644 N.Y.2d 619, 644 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7324
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. James. Read the opinion of the Court — 207 A.D.2d 564 →
Opinion
Upon a review of the facts, we decline to disturb the findings of the suppression court crediting the arresting officer’s testimony. Such testimony was not manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, self-contradictory (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88), or otherwise such as to warrant this Court’s rejection of the suppression court’s findings of fact (see, People v Ward, 198 AD2d 170, lv denied 82 NY2d 932). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. James, 228 A.D.2d 346, 644 N.Y.2d 619, 644 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 346 (People v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Garafolo
44 A.D.2d 86 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
People v. Ward
198 A.D.2d 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)